ThoughtStream^TM

Author

Author: Dr. Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, Retired

Interdisciplinarian with Immeasurable Intelligence. Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community.⁶

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
Attorney, Pro Se, Litigation, Trial, Depositions, Contracts (E.g. State of Alaska v. Pugh, et. al.)⁴
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude¹
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland, 3.91, Magna Cum Laude²
B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.³
G.E.D, State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

Resumé

Professional Resumé

Often edited in the addition of new ThoughtStreams, but all prior ThoughtStreams are permenantly uneditable, in intention but not necessarily in data security or data immunity from tampering. See Editing.

Introduction

The thoughstream is thoughts as they occur in a living autobiography, with freedom of expression.

The ThoughtStream, from its inception, was intended to be an outlet for writing and publishing thoughts of interest as they occurred. Only being able to write and speak thoughts, and not have thoughts appear directly in a typed or written format, one can only quickly write thoughts as they come to mind. A stream of consciousness into writing is not currently possible, and is perhaps not desirable. With my typing skills, I am able to somewhat stream from my thinking though my fingers directly into type without much alteration, and in fact, I resist editing and alteration. Many postings will be found that have small blemishes which I would like to preserve.

This work is well-known in the High Intelligence Community. Thoughts from this page were shared with millions of views. Postings here have been read thousands of times in the High Intelligence Community globally.

If there were a method of streaming thoughts directly into type, I might choose to use that in addition to, but probably not as a substitute for typing. There is a deliberateness in typing, that allows for writing what one would like to say, in a way that is somewhat consistent with how one would like to think; whereas, thinking would have more non-deliberate inclusions which may be blemishes from not writing. Thinking to oneself in a dictation mode may overcome this, but then the same issue exists when one is not in “dictation mode”. Ways of thinking between these deliberate ways of communicating would have blemishes that might confuse, and arguably would only be wanted for evidence about how people really think. I’m not opposed to sharing how my brain functions real-time, and I would be fine with sharing how my thinking is at all moments; but I would also want to be able to separate out deliberate thinking and be clear with the reader what my more committal thoughts are.

The current ThoughtStream is now intended to not only be an outlet for my thoughts in a stream of consciousness sort of way, in which I allow blemishes and freedom of expression, even for things which might be provocative from myself that I don’t really agree with or wouldn’t commit to completely, but a page intended to be my “thinking shares,” as part of my Living Autobiography.

A living autobiography would consist of your thoughts as you live, if it were totally complete. If artefacts from a persons life were used by that person to create an autobiography, it would include writings and photos, which would be laid on a timeline, to show a series of one’s thoughts shown in communications and recordings. Even images are, in a way, part of the thoughts that happened along the way in one’s life. If it were entirely complete, it may be what people mistakenly but wishfully attribute to themselves in an ability to see one’s whole life, even reliving it in one’s last moments (In a flash, some will say, of course inexactly and erroneously). This is what I’m intending to use this page for, to develop my Living Autobiography, at least as it relates to written thoughts I’m wanting to share, since the creation of the page, and onwards until I die.

The Living Autobiography in which these thinking shares are included, contain other categories of shares which also provide written material, videos, images, and so forth, and of course, the entire site is part of this living autobiography. The other pages which relate are in the contents under “living autobiography”, and are:

This page on thinking shares is the most developed on the site. The original ThoughtStream page includes 141,134 words, calculating using unix wordcount (including some html), and over 600 postings and brief articles.

Traditionally assuming 300 words comprises one typed page, this section of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw would be 470 pages.

It will never be changed or edited.

– Mattanaw

November 28^th, 2022, Cairns, Australia.

Tuesday, June 6^th, 2023, 7:48am, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

The Intelligent Who Cannot Find Real Games to Enjoy

Or: The choice of child's puzzles to mathematics and reading.

Since young I wondered why people seem to have been unable to notice that the puzzles offered by mathematics, are sufficient to supply the same or similar interests thought to be had in doing popular puzzles. I think it is arguable whether people truly find published puzzles that fun, even though they do them, but assuming they provide some amusement, or some somewhat pleasant way to use time, when nothing else seems better to do, in order to focus on what can be done instead that is at least as enjoyable or more enjoyable, but more importantly, useful. Math, reading and learning area all available activities at the time that puzzles are chosen, except that people don't imagine them to be options, perhaps for not recognizing, yet, that there are similarities.

Also, when young, I was exposed like others to a range of popular puzzles and puzzle games, that existed in our culture, in print in newspapers and periodicals, and in other types of physical games. I remember playing parlor games, card/strategy games, chess, crossword puzzles, puzzle-piece image recreation puzzles, word finders, and so on... The list of puzzles experienced by anyone from my generation or older, in a print or tactile format must be very large. Sudoku also existed, but not until I was older, in my later teens perhaps.

Here I will focus on chess, Sudoku, and crossword puzzles. These are all puzzles thought by the intelligent to be worth their time, perhaps for all of their lives. People in the high intelligence community, like Mensa, may have extra interest in puzzles, and Mensa has been a publisher and releaser of various print and tactile puzzles that are or were new, and wouldn't otherwise exist.

These types of puzzles, chess, Sudoku, and crossword puzzles, have some things of interest in common. For example, none of them model life, the way that it is claimed, mathematics or the sciences do. Each option, limits people's minds as to which games to play. When the time comes to choose a game, one recalls these, if one plays them, and then plays them again. If the game is chess, this can be a serious problem, as the repetitiveness of the game may not even be noticed by those enthusiastic about it, and they may choose that game, a bit too often.

These games, are also not great learning opportunities. Not only are they not great learning opportunities, people have difficulty explaining why they are worth doing. Sudoku somehow "ensures one's mind stays agile and, well, works". Some will try to borrow the utility of math and claim it exists in Sudoku. Chess, others will argue, is a kind of intelligence test, and of course, it is not, but certain people will think that showing some skill is a way to show that some smarts exists in the player. Chess, likes sports, also has an unadvanced analogy to life, people think, forgetting that such an analogy, could be quickly written down by, someone, and once known, doesn't require playing chess. Chess includes a skill of using certain mental powers, somewhat different than those for Sudoku and crossword puzzles, but these powers, particularly visual-pattern recognition and planning powers, exist doing almost anything complex outside. Crossword puzzles, supposedly advance one's vocabulary, by playing similar games over and over, with exposure to new hints at words, and new word problems and solutions. However, I think it irrefutable, the puzzles are often poorly created. The word problems are ill conceived, and answers are, well, often not answers. They words that fit into blocks that are solutions to hints, or word problems, that just sometimes slightly or partly relate. "I can guess the word that fits into the box, but the puzzle part, is well, not that well authored." The crossword enthusiast, like the chess person, and the Sudoku person, thinks they have some special vocab by doing it. But clearly, the Stanford-Binet test, can let them know what their relative standing as to vocab is, and in one sitting. I.e. Crossword puzzles, chess, and Sudoku, and many other games, allow one to pretend one is smarter than one is. Doing these things over and over really does indicate some dysfunction in choice of activities.

Sudoku is another game, of a single type, that can be done repetitively, with a pose that one is doing math somehow, and one is good at math. However, math does not do one thing over and over again. Math has a problem set that could be done forever, with new and different real problems, and solutions that can be applied to life. Sudoku doesn't appear to have many analogies to life. Also, Sudoku really would be something that a mathematician would be interested in, as a single problem only. A mathematician would be strange, to keep doing the same problem over and over after understanding it. It is a math problem that scales in complexity. In this way it is like the size of a chess board, which could be much bigger and include more pieces. Sudoku has easy puzzles, and harder ones, but the format is recognizably identical. A math problem exists in, perhaps, saying what is identical. The test author would know what that is very likely, but the audience would not. Meaning they may have not recognized what it is yet. However, that didn't stop them, from playing over and over the same problem-set.

Sudoku specifically prompted me to again and again, become somewhat annoyed, at the inability of people to see how pointless and wasteful the activity is. Mathematics textbooks include sometimes thousands of new problems, each different, that would create skills that can be used for real creative productions and learning applications. Somehow, the way in which people were exposed to math, and learning, has caused them to not realize, that all of that learning really could be fun. Particularly, if the posturing about the puzzles is true: "I like visual problems and like to relate them to real life learning" (chess), "I like vocabulary, which learned would allow expression, and perhaps new ways of thinking and communicating about life" (crossword puzzles), and "I like digits, which can be used for real world scientific applications, and for personal hobbies and projects" (Sudoku), then why not use what is more useful instead, related to learning that you would claim is vital. Is that a hard puzzle to really solve, that math and reading, and learning, with books and math, and logic, and science, really are better.

One might think that "doing math" and "reading" and "writing" or doing other productions may not include enough to do, somehow. But the comparison of things to do, in the entire available things to do in math, in reading, in writing, and in personal projects, is more than three puzzles. Instead of three, you can substitute in the number of puzzles you yourself can imagine as options, that you would really choose at the time that you decide, you need something boring to work on. That number is very small and finite. People are not powerful at considering options, when the time comes, to do something other than, sitting and staring, and contemplating good actions. Reading really includes all books and things written. All writing, really includes, all you can develop with your mind into print. All learning, really does include discovering something interesting, if looking in the right places, with good questions, and does not require pretend analogies to life, like chess. You are actually learning things in life, that can apply to life. In math, there really is every textbook ever written, that has millions of problems contained. The objective of this math, is usually real life problem solving. Problems are created for the puzzle mathematicians, so one does not have to become a real mathematician to enjoy it. In other words, you can just buy textbooks and have plenty of real world puzzles, created by someone else, just like Chess and Sudoku. Sudoku, has this special thing in which not only is it one type of problem, authored by someone else who maybe was a mathematician, but the users believe they are doing math, without any mathematical expressions of any kind. The test-user, is not a mathematician or puzzle-mather. They aren't doing math at all but believe they are because digits are present. Here as I write this, I can feel the Sudoku puzzler's presence, wanting me to at least notice, that they do mental arithmetic from elementary school, while they do Sudoku. But they'd want me to say it in a way that makes it sound better, by leaving the elementary nature, of addition, and whatever small skills and tricks are employed.

I have noticed, since young, that some few observations about these games, are enough to make them unworth my time and attention. Let's consider some examples. Each greatly diminish interest, but together they make the games seem foolish.

Some puzzles are conveniently scaled easy puzzles, made to be just hard enough, for you to think they are unmasterable, but easy enough for you to learn how to play them.
- Chess is an example. Chess is simply a scaled mini-puzzle, like tic-tac-toe. It really is fully-deterministic. Some claim ineffable freedom exists in chess, but that's because they don't really honestly have a mathematical approach to thinking about chess. It is a game that is set on an 8x8 board, and not a 64x64 board.
*Relatedly, if made smaller, they become children's games. What does this say of the slightly larger version? Sudoku could have less rows and columns. Crossword puzzles could have shorter more common words. Chess could be on a 4x4 board. Making them smaller makes them easier games, too easy to want to play. Well, what does that say about the slightly larger games that normal average adults enjoy? Some people even call the games of other adults "Child's games", noticing perhaps that there really is a similarity to the games children were playing. They just got slightly more complex.

[More to come]

Tuesday, June 6th, 2023, 7:48am, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA